« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Video: 'Or an asparagus plant'

by Jeremy Hooper

Vote No on 1 in Maine - Conversation With Bigotry [YT]

This should really be their new tag line: "Yes on 1: We Don't Care If Your Marriage Is A Sham, Just As Long as It's Penis-Vagina."

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Clearly, he was talking to Rick DeLano.

Yes On 1 gets all bent out of shape when out-of-state money and volunteers show up to work for No On 1. But nobody minds Rick DeLano's out-of-state help, no sirree.

The only thing I'll say in Mr. DeLano's defense is that he can at least form a sentence and has learnt not to rely on Bible verse as justification. However, his smarmy overuse of "well, Sean," and, "what you need to understand, Sean," "Sean, Sean, Sean," makes it obvious he feels he's talking to someone with the mind of a child. I know Sean Chapin - "mind of a child" is a label that does not apply.

Posted by: DN | Oct 21, 2009 9:30:15 AM

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I am really, really tired of people claiming that "traditional" marriage is the only kind of marriage there ever has been, and that "traditional" marriage has always been based on love between a man and a woman. Those who support "traditional" marriage must not have attended "high school" or cracked a "history book," or else they support the "traditional" marriage in which a "wife" is a man's "property." Either way, they look really "stupid."

(Yes, the quotation marks are ironic. Please don't submit me to http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/)

Posted by: CWM | Oct 21, 2009 10:11:01 AM

Well the bottom line, CWM, is that they just won't listen. Kathy Griffin coined the term "aggressive ignorance" in one of her standup specials, and it really is the most accurate description I've ever heard. Because it's not just a lack of information -- it's a proud, arrogant, refusal to listen to anything that doesn't come from their own choir.

I just don't understand how anyone can go through their life that way.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 21, 2009 10:18:45 AM

CWM, One doesn't even need to crack open a "history book" (shudder the thought), just looking at world news is enough:

At the age of 14, Nolizwi Sinama set off from her aunt's home to a neighbouring village. She thought she had been sent on a routine chore. In fact, she was on her way to be married to a 42-year-old man.


This 14 year old girl (child) was sold for the price of 3 head of cattle, into a slavery of marriage to a 42 year old man. And, this didn't happen a thousand years ago, it happened last week. And it happens every week, every day... maybe even several times today. And, this, much more than anything else was (and is) the model of a "traditional" marriage - being sold by one's "parents" into a life of slavery / servitude.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 21, 2009 10:44:38 AM

Is Rick DeLano somebody famous? I know he posts on the S4MM FB page (his avatar makes my skin crawl) and with this whopping 35 phone calls he can just FEEL the tide turning their way and so on, but is he someone from the Prop 8 campaign I should have heard of? Just wondering here...


Posted by: Leslie | Oct 21, 2009 10:48:22 AM

I don't *think* Rick DeLano is anyone famous, but if you visit the SFMM board, his name pops up often enough and with a very distinct writers voice that you can get a good idea that he is the one this exchange is taking place with. I was thinking the same thing while I watched the video.

If that tired old argument of "you already have equal rights, just marry a woman" held *any* water, then cases like Perez v Sharp and Loving v Virginia would not have overturned anti miscegenation laws.

And if Rick, or whoever it is, seriously thinks that marriage equality is going to be forever smacked down by public opinion, then I'm afraid he just hasn't been paying attention to the numbers these past 2 decades.

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Oct 21, 2009 12:02:00 PM

Yes, Rick does have a distinctive voice, that's for sure. To give him credit, he is one of the few people over there who actually writes something, versus just quoting passages from the Bible ad nauseaum.

I see that the posts from Sabrina have all been deleted. They managed to stay up for three hours before their heavy-fingered moderator woke up. LOL.

And, oh my, Jen is reporting the No on 1 people to WalMart because they are attacking people in the parking lot! Gasp! Jen, honey, hate to break it to ya, but I've been to No on 1 training. They specifically ask us not to attack. You must have mixed us up with the other guys... We're the nice folks. We say please and thank you.


Posted by: Leslie | Oct 21, 2009 12:36:51 PM

The "you can marry anyone you want as long as it's a woman" reminds me of Henry Ford's famous statement about the Model T. "You can have any color you want as long as it's black." It argues that a non-choice is actually a choice. Rick isn't the only one that argues from this perspective... so does Michael Medved. However, this is easily the weakest (and stupidest) argument in favor of traditional marriage.

1. If the "sanctity" of marriage is so important, then how can you also encourage sham marriages? Holding both positions is an obvious contradiction. Yet, the same people would insist the government is doing its job by preventing people from getting married simply to get their green card, for example. So... either the "sanctity" of marriage is true and ALL sham marriages are wrong, or the "sanctity" argument is simply a canard.

2. The other side always argues that gay people aren't fit to raise children, and in fact, are a danger to children. (Some argue that gay people raise kids just so they can rape them.) These same people would also never let a gay relative spend any time alone with their kids, based on this fear. YET, it's okay if a gay man and a straight woman want to get married, as long as he's a "he" and she's a "she"? But if that couple has kids, that's putting a gay father in close proximity to children... often alone! So, those who believe in "protecting children" can't legitimately argue Rick's position, either... unless of course, the "protecting" children" argument is a canard.

3. This one is more subtle, but Rick's argument basically says that romantic love and long-term commitment in marriage have nothing to do with each other. But if that's the case, why do people get married at all? Sure, there are legal protections and tax benefits, but that's not why a man gets down on one knee and gives an expensive ring to his beloved. It's because he *loves* her and wants to spend his life with her. Staying committed through thick and thin is based upon the strength of their mutual love for one another, not fear of divorce courts, lawyers and social stigma. Most straight people do not believe in the idea of marriage as purely--and only--a contract between two people made in the absence of romantic love. In fact, they believe, and experience, quite the opposite. The only way this argument makes any sense is if you believe that GLBT people are incapable of true love. *That* is what Rick is actually saying, but he has to strip the value from straight marriage to do it. That's what's so offensive.

The final point is why Rick can take such a superior tone with Sean, and why so many anti-gays have this tone of voice with us. To them, we're just silly children who don't know any better and must be corrected by their more-experienced parents. DN is right... the far right refuses to see us as fully-capable adults. It doesn't matter if we run a major corporation, return to the US as a war hero, or serve honorably as a political leader. We're still emotionally-stunted children.

That's the the most offensive position of all, and it's one we need to deal with directly in these ad campaigns. For some strange reason, we never have.

Posted by: Christopherâ„¢ | Oct 21, 2009 1:23:47 PM

I've seen that attitude and I know exactly what you're talking about, Christopherâ„¢. Specifically, I've seen the metaphor of the "spoiled child throwing a tantrum when [we] don't get [our] way" with respect to the post election prop 8 protests, and I've seen social conservatives cast themselves as the adult in that metaphor, "doing what they know is best."

It's smug, infantile, and one of many avenues I've seen people take in order to avoid addressing the merits of the issue directly. After all, why address an issue straightforwardly when you can just rely on good old dysphemism and poisoning the well?

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Oct 21, 2009 3:15:18 PM

I have noticed that condescension as well. Black people, especially those of the previous generation and living under Jim Crow can tell you that whites were never subtle in addressing black people or expecting them to never challenge whites any more than a child would or should.

I'm a straight black woman, and although I never had to live under Jim Crow (thank you granpa and gramma and mom and papa!), I've still gotten that tone and hated every second of it.
And if I pointed out such behavior and made sure that person understood they weren't talking to a child, they went away from the experience more offended than ever, as if I'm supposed to take it without saying anything!

Sean was talking to a man who didn't ask SEAN any questions.
I hate that too.
This is SEAN'S life, the quality of it and the urgency for Sean is legitimate.

The definition of marriage, in the civil legal structure that the state's only interest has been:

For two, consenting, non related non married adults to become primary kin of the other.

TWO: to define the PRIMACY and custody of one to the other

CONSENTING: that both parties are of the mental and intellectual capacity to agree to marry each other.

ADULTS: Constitution the minimum age of 18 without parental intervention or permission. There is NO maximum age, nor requirement that the participants be of similar or close age.

NON MARRIED: to enable PRIMACY of the other spouse as for sole custody in lieu of other kin.

NON related : see above. The state respects the blood kinship of siblings and parents with regard to custody in lieu of a spouse for inheritance and non parent protections and so on. Marriage is not NECESSARY for the state's purposes otherwise.

Nowhere is the care or creation of children a requirement.
Nowhere is it legal to ban couples who have children, nor who do not.

And an asparagus plant, an inanimate object or child cannot give consent.
The already married and already related represent REDUNDANCE, rendering marriage unnecessary.
So so much for the stupid multiple spouse argument.

Besides, considering how much serial divorce and remarriage there is among so many people, this is the closest thing to multi spouse our society has come.

I'm so over people using speciousness and conjecture to justify discrimination against gay people. Specifically over things that have nothing to do with being gay.

Indeed, exaggerating what 'redefinition' actually is has gotten on my last nerve.
The way I see it, the way marriage is defined NOW, won't be redefined by gay couples. Gay couples will be INCLUDED in the definition as it stands.

But of course, bring up the subject as I did just yesterday at work, and as soon as that person brought up polygamy as a reason to discriminate against gay people, I told her she hadn't thought the issue through and that's precisely why she shouldn't be voting or deciding on gay people getting married or not.

If she couldn't come up with a good reason, then she didn't have one.
And even worse reason for a Constitutional amendment.

People who don't consider themselves haters, and they aren't, aren't very deep thinkers either.

And I don't and won't accept for a minute,that such serious quality of life laws like this can or should be decided by someone who left up what they believe about it TO haters.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Oct 21, 2009 7:17:20 PM

Now this from SFMM on facebook:

>> Mike Lastname: I say prayers every night hoping gays come to terms and rejoice thy lord

Wonderful. Thanks for the prayers Mike. Keep your ballot off my marriage rights.

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Oct 21, 2009 8:29:06 PM

This could be the most telling comment I've seen so far:

>> Renee Lastname: This is the book that will be taught to Maine children...to teach them about diverse families. Children DO need to learn acceptance of diverse families, but NOT same-sex families!!!!

No on 1's campaign language is not hyperbole, and it's not dishonest. People *are* trying to harm real families and make them feel ashamed and shunned by society.

It's their way or the highway, no matter how many perfectly healthy and functioning families have to be trampled under their feet.

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Oct 21, 2009 9:17:32 PM

I think this comment page very neatly sums up our side of the debate. Here we have several gay people, a straight black woman, and others whose status I don't really know.

But we're here using clear English without a ton of typos and punctuation errors, we're using logic, we're not falling back on Bible verse, and while we all seem to agree on the topic, we allow for differences.

Their side, not so much.

Poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation (hate to sound schoolmarmy, but in a text-only medium, poor writing is the equivalent of drooling one's way through a conversation).

Lack of logic - their side relies entirely on circular logic, assuming a priori that their position is the correct one.

Bible verse - somehow, to them, this is used as the be-all, end-all proof of their position.

Allow for disagreement - repeat the catechism, repeat the catechism, repeat the catechism. Disagree with a word or two? You're out!

Remember a few months ago when it was revealed that the higher the education level, the greater the likelihood a person would vote pro-gay? Aggressive ignorance is kinda like the anti-PhD, isn't it?

Posted by: DN | Oct 21, 2009 10:59:23 PM

I didn't know I was famous!

I think the debate was excellent and I like the way he read my lines.

Wish IO would have known about this earlier!

Posted by: Rick DeLano | Jan 12, 2010 2:23:46 PM

In 1966 the state of Virginia told my father who he could not marry. Today, the state of Virginia tells my son who he can not marry. Virginia is not alone with a long history being wrong on social issues: wrong on slavery, wrong on voting rights, wrong on segregation, wrong on separate but equal, wrong on miscegenation laws and now wrong on anti-same-sex marriage.

Did the majority of Virginia citizens vote to change slavery, voting rights, segregation, miscegenation? No. Just like today, there were people saying let the people vote.

Many are concerned that it is not wise to challenge California Prop 8 in Federal court. While I see the danger, I also sense we will all witness another historic social change that will make this country even better.

Posted by: Jenny E | Jan 16, 2010 5:52:09 PM

I came across this comment while googling our friend, Mr. Delano. Now that he has admitted he is the person talking to Sean.

Toward the end, Sean says, "my future marriage will be as good and beautiful as your marriage."

Well guess what, everyone. Rick Delano, Mr. Sanctity of Marriage... is divorced.

Posted by: DN | Jan 25, 2010 10:11:40 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails